Japanese Psychological Research
1998, Volume 40, No. 1, 47–53
Short Report
Assessing the cross-cultural content validity
of the Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension scale (PRCA-24)1
CHARLES B. PRIBYL2
Faculty of Foreign Languages, Hokuriku University, Taiyogaoka,
Kanazawa 920-11, Japan
JAMES A. KEATEN
Department of Speech Communication, University of Northern Colorado,
Greeley, Colorado 80639, USA
MASAHIRO SAKAMOTO
Faculty of Foreign Languages, Hokuriku University, Taiyogaoka,
Kanazawa 920-11, Japan
FUSAKO KOSHIKAWA
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Literature, Waseda University,
Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162, Japan
Abstract: Despite its popularity in the USA, the most common communication apprehension
(CA) measurement scale, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24),
has been used in just three studies in Japan. Further, validity analyses have not been reported
for Japanese samples. This article attempts to analyze the content validity of the PRCA-24 on
Japanese college students. Results indicate that the PRCA-24 may be of use in determining
some, but not all, types of CA among Japanese students. Suggestions for future CA research
in Japan are offered.
Key words: communication apprehension, PRCA-24, cross-cultural, gender, content validity.
Communication apprehension (CA), as defined by McCroskey (1977), is “an individual’s
level of fear or anxiety associated with either
real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (p. 78), and affects all
modes of communication. Generally, there are
two forms of CA: trait-like CA and state-like
CA. The trait-state distinction can be thought
of as range of possibilities on a continuum. At
one end of the continuum, trait-like CA is
defined as “a relatively enduring, personalitytype orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide variety of contexts”
(McCroskey, 1984, p. 16). State-like CA is at
the other end of the continuum, and is considered a response to situational factors rather
than personality-based factors. State-like CA
can be characterized as “a transitory orientation
1
This study was supported by special research grants from Hokuriku University (1995, 1996).
Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles B. Pribyl, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Hokuriku University,
1-1 Taiyogaoka, Kanazawa 920-11, Japan.
2
© 1998 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road,
Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
48
C. B. Pribyl, J. A. Keaten, M. Sakamoto, and F. Koshikawa
toward communication with a given person or
group of people” (McCroskey, 1984, p. 18). CA
research, in short, centers on measuring and
treating those who suffer from anxiety about
communicating (Richmond & McCroskey,
1995).
Communication apprehension is commonly
measured with the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24), considered “the most popular and valid measure of
trait-like CA” (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher,
1994, p. 292). The PRCA-24 was developed
in response to criticism that the first PRCA
(McCroskey, 1970) did not reflect common
communication situations (McCroskey, Beatty,
Kearney, & Plax, 1985; McCroskey &
Richmond, 1980).
The PRCA-24, a measure of trait-like CA
(McCroskey, 1982), consists of 24 statements
regarding feelings toward communicating. Respondents are asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a five-point
Likert format (see Appendix). The PRCA-24
was designed to assess feelings about communicating in four contexts (six questions per
context): group discussion, meetings, dyad, and
public speaking. These four contexts have been
consistently reported as being extracted as four
distinct dimensions in US samples (Ayers,
1988; Richmond & McCroskey, 1995; Rubin,
Graham, & Mignerey, 1990). Scores on the
PRCA-24 can range from a minimum of 24
to a maximum of 120. A higher score indicates a higher level of reported apprehension.
McCroskey et al. (1985) report that the PRCA24 is high in internal consistency, with alpha
reliability estimates ranging from .93 to .95.
On US populations, research data support
the content validity as well as the criterion validity of the PRCA-24 (McCroskey et al., 1985).
Beatty (1987) found that scores on the publicspeaking dimension of the PRCA-24 predicts
general avoidance and withdrawal behavior.
Beatty, Forst, and Stewart (1986) discovered
that the public-speaking score on the PRCA
can predict speech duration.
Research also upholds the construct validity
of the PRCA-24. Keaten, Kelly, Begnal, Heller,
and Walker (1993) noted that the PRCA-24
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.
was correlated strongly to reticence, and Keaten
and Kelly (1994) observed that the PRCA-24
was correlated significantly to self-reports
of communication competence. CA is also
negatively correlated with extroversion (–.58)
(McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione,
1977). In total, the PRCA and its variants have
been administered to over a quarter of a million people since its development. There is also
strong empirical evidence supporting claims of
reliability of the PRCA-24 on US populations
(see Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994).
However, there are no published reports of
the validity of the PRCA-24 when administered to Japanese populations, even though
the questionnaire has been used in Japan three
times (Klopf & Cambra, 1979; McCroskey,
Gudykunst, & Nishida, 1985; Nishida, 1988).
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
address the issue of the content validity of the
PRCA-24 on a Japanese population.
Method
The PRCA-24 was translated from English
to Japanese by a Japanese bilingual and an
American bilingual. Back-translation was performed by a Japanese professor of English.
Through the use of a focus group, the translation was judged to be equivalent (Newmark,
1988), and was pilot tested to ensure accuracy.
The focus group spent considerable time discussing the specialized terms, and the Japanese
words used for each of the four dimensions
were carefully chosen. A focus group to discuss
the items on the questionnaire consisted of 28
college freshmen.
The sample for this study was drawn from a
major private university in Tokyo. The class
selected in Japan was a lecture-style introductory psychology course, with a total of 283
students (120 men, 163 women) available for
this sample. Subjects were given ample time at
the beginning of class to complete the PRCA24. Participants were drawn as a purposive, nonrandom sample (see Frey, Botan, Friedman,
& Kreps, 1991). Questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS.
Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the PRCA-24
Results
Principal-components analysis
A principal-components analysis of the PRCA24 was conducted using Varimax rotation. Factors with eigenvalues of less than one before
rotation were not included in the factor model.
Eliminating factors with eigenvalues less than
one is a common procedure and is the default
setting on SPSS. A principal-component analysis
of the PRCA-24 revealed a four-dimensional
49
structure consisting roughly of the four contexts
of the PRCA: group discussion (questions 1 to
6); meetings (questions 7 to 12); dyad (questions
13 to 18); and public speaking (questions 19 to
24) (Table 1). Loadings on the group and meeting subdimension, however, were not consistent with those of US samples. The four-factor
model explained approximately 61% of the variation in PRCA-24 scores. An unrotated factor
analysis indicated that all but four questions (2,
4, 16, 17) loaded on the first dimension.
Table 1. Principal-components analysis of PRCA-24 factor structure
Statement
Factor 1 (public speaking)
1
2
3
4
5
6
. . . . . . . . . . .
7
8
9
10
11
12
. . . . . . . . . . .
13
14
15
16
17
18
. . . . . . . . . . .
19
20
21
22
23
24
. . . . . . . . . . .
Eigenvalue
Percent of variation
Cumulative variance
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Factor 2 (group discussion)
Factor 3 (dyads)
.80951
.63630
.70444
.77925
.51011
.56832
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.47995
.32163
.39036
.44440
.48556
.54980
.32889
.33059
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.58578
.63364
.79754
.78454
.61266
.73380
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.67608
.66851
.62594
.72028
.66280
.66977
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.54
2.07
1.79
39.7
8.6
7.5
39.7
48.3
55.8
Factor 4 (meetings)
.41390
.35481
.30305
.61167
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.60805
.66278
.63658
.63148
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.30231
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.39766
.55673
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.19
5.0
60.8
Factor loadings of less than .3 were omitted.
Dotted lines indicate the original dimensions of the questionnaire (group discussion, 1 to 6; meetings, 7 to 12; dyad, 13
to 18; public speaking, 19 to 24) (McCroskey, 1982).
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.
C. B. Pribyl, J. A. Keaten, M. Sakamoto, and F. Koshikawa
50
Central tendency and dispersion measures
Means and standard deviations were calculated
for both the PRCA-24 and the corresponding
subdimensions (Table 2). Participants reported
the most fear in the public-speaking context
(mean = 20.39, SD = 4.75), followed closely
by the meetings context (mean = 20.08, SD =
4.14), followed by group discussion (mean =
19.14, SD = 5.13), and dyads (mean = 17.18,
SD = 4.72).
analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. These indicated a statistically significant difference between males and females,
F(4, 277) = 3.07, p , .02. A series of t-tests were
conducted to isolate the source of the difference. Results revealed a significant difference
within the public-speaking subdimension. In
particular, the score for females (mean = 20.91,
SD = 4.33) was significantly higher, t(280) = 2.42,
p , .02.
Internal-consistency estimates
Internal consistency of the PRCA-24 was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The internal
consistency of the PRCA was high (α = .93),
with lower estimates for the subdimensions
(group discussion α = .87, meetings α = .81,
dyad α = .85, and public speaking α = .86).
Correlation matrices
Table 3 lists the correlation coefficients of the
PRCA-24. The subdimensions of the PRCA-24
are significantly related to the overall PRCA24 score. Looking at subdimension-total correlations, the strongest was the score on the
meetings subdimension (r = .90).
Difference analysis of gender
To assess the statistical significance of the
difference between genders, two multivariate
Discussion
Table 2. PRCA-24 means table
Japanese
sample
American
samplea
Instrument/
subscale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
PRCA
Public speaking
Dyad
Meeting
Group
76.70
20.39
17.18
20.08
19.14
15.54
4.75
4.72
4.14
5.13
65.60
19.30
14.50
16.40
15.40
15.30
5.10
4.20
4.80
4.80
a
Data taken from normative means published by
Richmond and McCroskey (1995).
Japanese college student means for the PRCA24 and subdimensions were higher overall when
compared with those of their US counterparts,
which is consistent with other studies conducted in Japan (Klopf & Cambra, 1979;
McCroskey et al., 1985; Nishida, 1988).
Students in Japan report the highest levels of
apprehension in the area of public speaking.
This parallels results found by Nishida (1988).
However, US students also report the most
fear in the public-speaking context (Richmond
& McCroskey, 1995).
There was a statistically significant difference
between genders on public-speaking scores in
Japan, an occurrence also observed by Nishida
(1988) on a Japanese sample. In the USA, no
clear pattern of gender differences has been
Table 3. Correlation matrix of PRCA-24, and dimensions
Scale/dimension
PRCA
Group
Meeting
Dyad
Public speaking
PRCA
Group
Meeting
Dyad
Public speaking
–
.8165**
.9005**
.7912**
.8252**
.8165**
–
.7085**
.4865**
.5012**
.9005**
.7085**
–
.6128**
.7082**
.7912**
.4865**
.6128**
–
.5494**
.8252**
.5012**
.7082**
.5494**
–
**p , .01 (one-tailed probability).
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.
Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the PRCA-24
reported. Leary and Kowalski (1995) conclude
the results of gender differences in CA levels is
“inconsistent and inconclusive” (p. 123).
We speculate that gender roles and social
expectations contribute to the differences in
public-speaking scores. Research by Hofstede
(1980) suggests that masculinity and femininity
help to determine the values of a society. According to Hofstede, masculinity refers to the
degree to which masculine values can be found
in a society. In a comparison of 40 countries,
Japan ranked first in terms of masculine traits.
Thus, public speaking may be thought of as a
male-oriented role, while women are not expected to speak out. In other words, women
may, in a culturally appropriate way, be expected
to be submissive in public settings. Cultural
expectations and lack of experience may be responsible for higher PRCA-24 public-speaking
scores among Japanese students, especially
females.
A principal-components analysis of the
PRCA-24 suggested confusion exists between
the group-discussion and meetings subdimensions; factor analysis of this study’s data resulted in different subdimensions than those
found in previous research (Klopf & Cambra,
1979; McCroskey et al., 1985; Nishida, 1988).
Factor structures extracted from data in this
study suggest that Japanese students may not
recognize differences between the concepts of
a meeting and a group discussion. In essence,
the reactions to the words “group discussion”
and “meetings” may evoke mixed feelings
among Japanese and US students. The differences in feelings may be due to the “high-context
nature” of Japanese culture (Hall, 1976).
In a “high-context culture” (Japan), the dynamics of a meeting or group discussion may
be different from that of a “low-context culture” (USA), because high-context cultures rely
more on the unspoken. Samovar and Porter
(1995) note, “Anticipating and obviating interpersonal antagonism allow the Japanese to
avoid impudent and discourteous behavior”
(p. 108). Support for this can be found, as
Japanese students may be using the terms
group discussion and meeting interchangeably.
For example, some students thought group
51
discussions were “places to exchange opinions”
while other students believed that a meeting
is “a place where one can make a strong assertion.” A few students, however, made clear
distinctions between group discussion and
meetings.
In the USA, meeting and group dimensions
are related but empirically distinct (Levine &
McCroskey, 1990). US students consider a
group discussion to be less formal than a meeting and report slightly more apprehension associated with meetings (mean = 16.4) than with
group discussions (mean = 15.4) (Richmond &
McCroskey, 1995).
Whether the confusion between group discussion and meetings is due to a lack of experience
or an actual cultural difference has yet to be
determined, but might be answered by measuring an adult population. Nishida (1988) included adults in his sample, but he failed
to report a dimensional analysis. Future CA
research needs to address this point.
As noted in the introduction, the PRCA-24
was conceptualized to measure communication
in a wide variety, although not exhaustive, set of
situations. These situations are couched into
four subdimensions, which serve as the basis for
measuring state-like apprehension. Someone
who scores high on one or more of the subdimensions (defined as ±1 SD – McCroskey &
Richmond, 1995) can be said to be experiencing
state-like CA. When someone scores higher for
all four subdimensions, that person can be said
to be suffering from trait-like apprehension. On
this sample of Japanese students, the archetypal
four-factor structure of the PRCA-24 did not
emerge intact. This fact brings into question the
content validity of the PRCA-24 in Japan.
Because all the items from the PRCA-24 appeared in the first dimension on an unrotated
factor matrix, there is reason to believe that
the instrument is measuring the CA construct.
While the PRCA-24 may be gauging trait-like
CA simply by measuring levels of fear on 24
questions about communication, state-like
apprehension, by definition, must be measured
by operationalizing concepts into questions
and dimensions which are culturally appropriate. Our data suggest that women are more
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.
52
C. B. Pribyl, J. A. Keaten, M. Sakamoto, and F. Koshikawa
apprehensive than men in the public-speaking
context, and that both male and female
Japanese people are more apprehensive about
public speaking than Americans. However,
because of the rarity of public speaking in
Japan, we question the appropriateness of
including the public-speaking dimension at the
expense of other communication contexts
which may be more culturally appropriate.
Because the rotated factor analysis failed to
reveal a clear distinction between group discussions and meetings, these two dimensions
must also be called into question. In summary,
the evidence presented in this study suggests
that three of the four contexts being measured
by the PRCA-24 may be inappropriate for use
in measuring state-like CA in Japan.
Directions for future research
In a broader context, research on CA must
attempt to examine the uniqueness of fear
within the Japanese culture, and also determine
under which conditions fear is likely to surface.
In other words, common communication situations within the Japanese culture need to be
categorized, and a CA instrument made to
reflect Japanese communication contexts.
References
Ayers, J. (1988). Antecedents of communication
apprehension: A reaffirmation. Communication
Research Reports, 5, 76–83.
Beatty, M. J. (1987). Communication apprehension
as a determinate of avoidance, withdrawal and
performance anxiety. Communication Quarterly,
37, 202–217.
Beatty, M. J., Forst, E. C., & Stewart, R. A. (1986).
Communication apprehension and motivation
as predictors of public speaking duration. Communication Education, 35, 143–146.
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., & Kreps,
G. L. (1991). Investigating communication: An
introduction to research methods. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related venues.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.
Keaten, J. A., & Kelly, L. A. (1994). Negative
thoughts, conditioned anxiety, and skills deficit:
Toward a typology of students in the basic public
speaking course. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Keaten, J., Kelly, L. A., Begnal, C., Heller, D., &
Walker, A. (1993). Development of an instrument to measure reticence. Paper presented at
the Annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL, USA.
Klopf, D. W., & Cambra, R. E. (1979). Communication apprehension among college students in
America, Australia, Japan, and Korea. Journal
of Psychology, 102, 27–31.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social
anxiety. New York: Guilford Press.
Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring
trait communication apprehension: a test of rival
measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57, 62–72.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communicationbound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269–277.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication
apprehension: A summary of recent theory and
research. Human Communication Research, 4,
78–96.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical
communication (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
McCroskey, J. C. (Ed.) (1984). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1980). The
quiet ones: Shyness and communication apprehension. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Richmond, V. P., &
Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and
self-esteem. Human Communication Research,
3, 269–277.
McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax,
T. G. (1985). The content validity of the PRCA24 as a measure of communication apprehension
across communication contexts. Communication
Quarterly, 33, 165–173.
McCroskey, J. C., Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T.
(1985). Communication apprehension among
Japanese students in native and second language.
Communication Research Reports, 2, 11–15.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Nishida, T. (1988). Daigakusei no komyunikeshon
fuan [Communication apprehension among
Japanese college students]. “Kokusaikenkyu”
Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the PRCA-24
Nihon Daigaku [Nihon University Studies on
International Relations], 8, 171–183.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (4th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
Rubin, R. B., Graham, E. E., & Mignerey, J. T.
(1990). A longitudinal study of college students’
communication competence. Communication
Education, 39, 1–14.
53
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994).
Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford Press.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1995). Communication between cultures (2nd edn.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
(Received July 10, 1995; accepted Nov. 6, 1996)
Appendix: Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)
Directions. This instrument is composed of twenty-four statements concerning feelings about
communicating with other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to
you by marking whether you: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or
(5) strongly disagree. Work quickly; record your first impression.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
I dislike participating in group discussions.
Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
I like to get involved in group discussions.
Engaging in group discussions with new people makes me tense and nervous.
I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
Usually I am calm and relaxed while participating in a meeting.
I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting.
I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.
I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.
While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous.
I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.
Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.
Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.
While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.
I’m afraid to speak up in conversations.
I have no fear of giving a speech.
Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while I am giving a speech.
I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.
While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
© Japanese Psychological Association 1998.